Here are my thoughts on one criticism of Žižek – that he too frequently uses rhetorical questions. A question, if used strategically, can match the ability of a work of art to provoke its addressee. Hegel praised science’s daring, speculative thesis that the subject and the object – mind and brain – coincide. Why? Because if we don’t rely on a supernatural soul as the source of the mind’s power, then we see the full power of the mind, on its own, to subvert the object. The only way to get that result was to advance a speculative thesis. And so I ask: would Žižek’s rhetorical style not indicate the same courage and valor, according to Hegel, as the inquisitive scientist’s speculation/suggestion that something scandalous – the coincidence of mind and brain – might actually be the case? Could he genuinely participate with his community of readers — the addressees — if he submitted his argument as a transmission to be received, as material ready for consumption?

I would absolutely say that he writes and speaks rhetorically because it causes a particular reaction out of the people to whom he is communicating. i suppose I’m considering it as a tool of speech, which he is using well, much as other philosophers have. His goal is to enact change and force people into another mode of thinking, what better why to do such a thing than start by shifting the dynamic of the conversation from on where he is lecturing at you to when where you are conversing with him, which he does by asking questions instead of posing statements. By doing so he forces the individuals to start thinking on their own and enter the discussion, which is what i think he wants all along.